I am the caretaker for a private car collection here in Fort Worth. The owner is having some declining health issues and we are starting to part with a few cars. One in particular is a 1967 Corvette convertible. He has owned the car for about twenty years. The date casting from the rear of the block is A227, which is appropriate for this Corvette. A prospective buyer is believing the engine serial is suspect and could be a fraud. The engine was detailed by myself about four years ago and painted. I used lacquer thinner to wipe off the paint on the number. Does anyone else find this suspect or fraudulent and why. Thanks...Mike

 

The obvious, nonoriginal sanding/abrasion marks that you see in the picture at an angle that someone mistakenly left there while trying to get the paint off the pad (not done with thinner) will make some people worry about whether the pad has been decked and the numbers restamped.

 

For what its worth heres a pic of an original 66 vin pad

 

Not good.

 

that engine stamp was not done at the factory. period.

 

Rather than sanding marks to clean the pad, the angled marks (all nicely parallel) may have been an attempt with a belt sander to replicate broach marks.

 

There is a font issue with that VIN stamp

 

When i said engine stamp i meant the WHOLE stamp, not just the engine assembly stamp. To me engine assembly stamp is different than the engine stamp. Both stamps are not TFP. Not even close.

 

The "evenness" of the lines on the engine pad, while at an angle, lead me to believe that the pad was decked and restamped.

The font of the characters used on the stamping also are not typical of factory production.

 

Does it also appear that the pad surface is lower than the water pump boss, indicating that the pad was cut down?

 

I totally appreciate everyone’s replies. Thank you all.

 

Here is mine from an early 1967 L79 which I believe is original to the car. If it looks wrong, please correct me.

 

Aside from the missing/incorrect broach marks on the surface of the pad and the fonts that some people have questioned, the serial number 15,442 corresponds to a car built in early April, 1967. The engine assembly date V0127 (January 27, 1967) would be highly unusual for an April car. Not impossible, but highly unusual. Most small block cars assembled in April had engines that were assembled in March.

 

Original all day long in my opinion

 

If you REALLY want to know and remove all doubt:

http://ccas4vettes.com/pr01.htm

http://ccas4vettes.com/

 

Don't waste your money. Go to CCAS to confirm originality, not to confirm a restamp.

 

several things,

paint on the pad
someone took a grinder, heavy sandpaper to the pad.
do those sanding lines look to be before or after the stamp? looks like before.
the gap in the water pump boss is exaggerated, but if the engine deck is cut down that much then you really have a issue with pistons protruding above the deck and ultra high compression. especially a HT will have domes, opening up all kinds of issues.
the date spread of over 2 months from assembly to vin stamp is too long and is just another excuse. Although I don't have knowledge of factory stoppages that might prolong this date gap.
That pad does not have 53 years of patina on it. way too shiney and sharp edges.
the casting date code of the block at best it would be in the 70 to 80 day range, another excuse.
even if CCAS blesses this one, then you would still have trouble selling it for original engine money for the above reasons. not worth spending the money for CCAS.
Might be a very nice car and well worth it. but discount it from what a similar car with no excuses would bring.

 

Isn't the "1" in the assembly date supposed to be a capital "I"?

 

I have developed a theory about what may have happened with this pad.

I studied the pad stampings further and compared the fonts in the stampings to other, known-original fonts in my collection of pad photos. In my view, the VO127HT engine assembly stamping looks to be original. While the "2" used in this stamping is less common than a wider version that appears more frequently, it does show up in known-original engine assembly stampings. Contrary to what some people believe, several characters used by the factory had more than one version of the font.

However, several of the fonts used in the 7115442 VIN derivative stamping are distinctly different from any that I have seen in known-original stampings. Most notable is the "4," but the "5" and the "2" also differ from anything I have on file for known-original stampings.

My theory is that this block is an original 350 HP Corvette block that has had the serial number changed. What may have happened is that someone used a belt sander to sand the pad at a slight angle, so that the original VIN derivative was removed while leaving the original engine assembly stamping readable. Then, the new (fake) VIN derivative was stamped where the original had been previously.

One thing that might help reinforce this this theory is if the casting date of the block lines up well with the January 27 engine assembly date. In April 1967, block castings were typically machined and assembled within a few days of being cast.

So, it might turn out that this block is a genuine, production 1967 350 HP block, but not from the car where it currently resides.

It may be worth noting that if the block's casting number is 3892657 and the casting date is within six months prior to the car's approximate assembly date of April 3, 1967, the pad issues on this car would not preclude the car from achieving an NCRS Top Flight award. Out of 4500 points for the whole car, only 88 points are assigned to the pad. This pad would definitely lose the standard 38 points allocated for factory broach marks, and would likely lose the standard 25 points allocated for the VIN derivative stamping. The engine assembly stamping might get the standard 25 points allocated to that stamping.

In this scenario, the deduction for the pad would be (38 + 25) = 63 points, equal to 1.4% of the total points allocated for the whole car. The threshold for an NCRS Top Flight is 94%, so there would still be plenty of room to achieve a Top Flight if the rest of the car scores well.

My point here is that contrary to popular belief, the pad, by itself, is not a deal-killer for achieving an NCRS Top Flight. The block casting number and casting date have more points assigned to them than the pad. Losing all the points for the block is a 350 point deduction (7.8% of the 4500 point total), so THAT is a deal killer for an NCRS Top Flight.

I think these distinctions may be helpful as the OP tries to estimate the market value for this car. My rule-of-thumb is that a 1967 Corvette that has a completely incorrect engine (say, from a 1972 passenger car) will reduce the market value of the car by at least 15% compared to an otherwise identical car that still has it's original engine.

Some cars are marketed as having period-correct engines, and it appears that this car would qualify for that description. For the right buyer, especially a buyer who wants to pursue an NCRS Top Flight award, a car with a suitable period correct engine that meets the NCRS judging standards would have more value than a car with a completely incorrect engine.

 

I agree. I think it was decked, re-stamped, and then sanded. Either way, it's not genuine IMO.